Americans United - Michael Gersonhttps://www.au.org/tags/michael-gerson
enGerson Goes Goofy: Columnist Bashes Obama’s Decision To Side With People Over Prelateshttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/gerson-goes-goofy-columnist-bashes-obama%E2%80%99s-decision-to-side-with-people
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Americans rely on birth control. The Obama administration wants to ensure that they have access to it.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>I know that there are thoughtful conservative commentators in the world, but I do have to wonder why, when it comes to issues of religion and church-state separation, so many of them go off the deep end.</p><p>Consider Michael Gerson. The former speechwriter for President George W. Bush is now a syndicated columnist, and, while I don’t agree with much of what he says, he sometimes writes columns that make me think.</p><p>Yesterday was not one of those columns. Gerson <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-radical-power-grab-on-health-care/2012/01/30/gIQANB7XdQ_story.html">chose to comment </a>on President Barack Obama’s decision to require almost all employers, including some religiously affiliated organizations, to provide birth control coverage in their health care plans. Rather than provide thought-provoking commentary, Gerson came off sounding like a hysterical Free Republic poster but with better spelling.</p><p>Obama’s decision, he asserts, was an “ambush.” Gerson adds, “Both radicalism and maliciousness are at work in Obama’s decision – an edict delivered with a sneer.”</p><p>So, ensuring Americans access to birth control is malicious and radical? If so, then a lot of Americans are malicious and radical because a lot of Americans use birth control. (In one poll, <a href="http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/331/Default.aspx">86 percent</a> of Americans said they think the effect of “the pill” has been good for society.)</p><p>The administration’s rule was not handed down with a “sneer.” In fact, the administration deliberated over this for a long time. Obama even met with Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, at the White House prior to the decision.</p><p>Gerson conveniently omitted some key facts from his column. For starters, this new rule does not apply to houses of worship. It does apply to institutions like church-related colleges, hospitals and social services agencies. These entities serve the general population, hire large numbers of non-Catholics and receive substantial amounts of taxpayer support. They will be required to adopt health plans that provide birth control to those employees who want it.</p><p>To most people, this is not a huge deal. It’s not 1950 anymore. The Catholic hierarchy long ago lost this battle. Polls show that <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/14/us-most-catholic-women-us-use-birth-cont-idUSTRE73D4SZ20110414">98 percent </a>of sexually active Catholic women use artificial forms of contraception. The church leadership’s attempt to badger its own members into compliance has failed. Why should federal policy reflect a theological rule that just about every U.S. Catholic is ignoring?</p><p>Gerson concludes his column with an ominous warning, saying Obama’s decision “will provoke opposition beyond Catholicism.” He goes on to write, “The administration’s ultimate motivation is uncertain. Has it adopted a radical secularism out of conviction, or is it cynically appealing to radical secularists? In either case, the war on religion is now formally declared.”</p><p>This sounds like the mumbo-jumbo I read in Religious Right fundraising letters. Gerson is either being incredibly dense or disingenuous. The administration’s “ultimate motivation” is not uncertain. It’s crystal clear: Americans rely on birth control. The administration wants to ensure that they have access to it.</p><p>The Rev. Paul Simmons, president of the Louisville, Ky., chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and a Baptist minister, had a worthwhile take on this. Simmons said the administration was correct to require the coverage. He said denying women coverage for contraception coerces them into following teachings they may not believe in because of the complications and expense of seeking coverage on their own.</p><p>“It’s nobody’s business but the woman’s,” Simmons <a href="http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012301310081">told the <em>Louisville Courier-Journal</em></a>. “She can seek all the counsel in the world she desires” from religious leaders, he said. “But she should not be subject to anybody’s conscience but her own.”</p><p>Yes, the Catholic hierarchy will throw a fit. Americans United is already receiving reports of bishops issuing <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/30/catholic-churches-evangelize-against-obama-en-masse/">letters denouncing Obama</a> to congregants. But there’s no guarantee that the average person in the pews will listen. Chances are, most of them agree with the president.</p><p>Obama had a choice: He could side with the vast majority of Americans who want and expect access to modern medicine, including contraceptives, or he could side with a band of reactionary (and celibate) bishops stuck in the 15th century. He chose the former.</p><p>This may have surprised Gerson. To the rest of us, it’s just plain common sense.</p><p>P.S. The February issue of <em>Church &amp; State</em> contains a cover story examining the Catholic hierarchy’s efforts to aggressively step up its religious lobbying in Washington. You can read it <a href="http://au.org/church-state/february-2012-church-state/featured/the-bishops-obama-and-religious">here</a>.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/reproductive-health-conscience-clauses-for-religious-objectors">Reproductive Health &amp; Conscience Clauses for Religious Objectors</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/president-barack-obama">President Barack Obama</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/archbishop-timothy-dolan">Archbishop Timothy Dolan</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/birth-control">birth control</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/paul-simmons">Paul Simmons</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/michael-gerson">Michael Gerson</a></span></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-chapter field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Chapters:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/chapters/louisville">Louisville</a></div></div></div>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:14:25 +0000Rob Boston6726 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/gerson-goes-goofy-columnist-bashes-obama%E2%80%99s-decision-to-side-with-people#commentsFringe Festival: Why We Must Take ‘Dominionists’ Seriouslyhttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/fringe-festival-why-we-must-take-%E2%80%98dominionists%E2%80%99-seriously
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">We are not arguing that dominionists are going to seize power next week and send your uncle to the gulag because he’s a Unitarian.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s recent day-long prayer-and-fasting rally in Houston has led to some interesting fallout. Commentators in the media are taking an overdue look at the extreme views of the groups that sponsored “The Response.”</p>
<p>Unfortunately, some are reaching a strange conclusion: These groups are so out on the fringe that we don’t need to worry about them.</p>
<p>Many of the organizations that sponsored “The Response” are extreme, all right. They are “dominionists” – that is, they believe only Christians of their stripe have the “true” religion and they should take dominion and govern based on their (narrow) interpretation of the Bible.</p>
<p>Sure, it’s tempting to dismiss dominionists as a marginalized lunatic fringe. After all, many of them do tend to take positions that are, to be blunt, really out there. For example, they would not only outlaw abortion, they would execute any woman who gets the procedure or doctor who performs one. They would also execute gays, adulterers, blasphemers and those who hold to “false” religions.</p>
<p>Syndicated columnist Michael Gerson <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-holy-war-on-the-tea-party/2011/08/22/gIQAYRcOXJ_story.html">argues</a> that views such as this mean we don’t have take these folks seriously. He criticizes those who are sounding the alarm and writes, “Dominionism, though possessing cosmic ambitions, is a movement that could fit in a phone booth.”</p>
<p>Another approach is to insist that anyone who expresses concern about dominionism is attacking all evangelicals. <em>Washington Post</em> columnist Lisa Miller<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/dominionism-beliefs-among-conservative-christians-overblown/2011/08/17/gIQAb5eaNJ_story.html"> asserted recently</a>, “Evangelicals generally do not want to take over the world. ‘Dominionism’ is the paranoid mot du jour.”</p>
<p>Let’s clarify a couple of things here. No one is seriously arguing that all evangelicals are dominionists who yearn to take over the world. That is a classic straw-man argument, and it’s easy to blow down. Nor are we arguing that dominionists are going to seize power next week and send your uncle to the gulag because he’s a Unitarian.</p>
<p>What we’re saying is that there is a significant strain of thought in the conservative Christian community that is actively hostile to church-state separation, pluralism, secular government, modern science, women’s rights, etc. This movement has been influenced by dominionist theology. It is politically active and influential, and people need to know about it.</p>
<p>Consider the attacks on legal abortion and the spate of bills targeting that procedure in the states. Consider the ongoing effort to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools. Consider the harsh attacks on gay people and the efforts to roll back the civil rights gains they have made. Consider the constant attempts to divert tax money from public schools and public services to private religious schools and “faith-based” social service agencies.</p>
<p>Also, remember that there was a time – not so long ago, really – when a candidate did not have to kowtow to right-wing fundamentalists to be considered a serious contender in the Republican Party.</p>
<p>How did all of this come about? It isn’t because dominionists took over. It’s because they laid the philosophical groundwork for Religious Right activism that energized millions of fundamentalist Christians. For a long time, these people believed politics was “worldly” and not their calling. When fundamentalist clergy decided to get political, the dominionists gave them the biblical basis for it.</p>
<p>Such was the birth of the Religious Right. Over the years, some Religious Right leaders have conceded that the Christian Reconstructionists, a leading school of dominionist thought, were essential to their way of thinking. They admit that movement founder Rousas J. Rushdoony and his acolytes paved the way for the merger of right-wing religion and politics that is today so common.</p>
<p>The results of this are being felt in school boards, county commissions, state legislatures and in Congress.</p>
<p>We at Americans United refuse to shut our eyes to this. We refuse to pretend that those of us who oppose the theocratic schemes of the Religious Right “just don’t get” conservative evangelicals. We are well aware that many evangelicals reject the thinking of men like Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Chuck Colson. But we are also aware that millions of others align themselves with the Religious Right agenda. They believe their crabbed interpretation of the Bible gives them the right to run other people’s lives – and we are determined to stop them.</p>
<p>Religious Right groups are fond of talking about “worldviews.” They imply that worldviews are in conflict, and they are right to a certain extent. The Religious Right has a worldview anchored in the 13th century when church and state were one. Activists in this movement continue to be at war with religious diversity, secular government, church-state separation, religious freedom, intellectual thought and much of modern life.</p>
<p>Many other Americans hold to a different worldview – one based on tolerance, religious pluralism, individual rights and the idea that our laws should not be based on religion. These two ways of looking at the world are definitely in conflict, a conflict that, in America, is increasingly reflected in the political arena.</p>
<p>Dominionists played a key role in bringing us to this point. That’s the real story that some in the media either just don’t get or willfully choose to ignore.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-holy-war-on-the-tea-party/2011/08/22/gIQAYRcOXJ_story.html"><br /></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/churches-and-politics">Churches and Politics</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/fighting-religious-right">Fighting the Religious Right</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/lisa-miller">Lisa Miller</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/michael-gerson">Michael Gerson</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/rj-rushdoony-christian-reconstructionism-american-vision-gary-north-brian-godawa">R.J. Rushdoony; Christian Reconstructionism; American Vision; Gary North; Brian Godawa</a></span></div></div>Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:25:23 +0000Rob Boston2223 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/fringe-festival-why-we-must-take-%E2%80%98dominionists%E2%80%99-seriously#comments